Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Putting The Awe Back In Magic
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 7998365" data-attributes="member: 6993955"><p>Do you think 30 points of damage is enough to topple a stone pillar? Maybe a thinner stone pillar? How a about a really girthy stone pillar? Meh. I'd rather adjudicate it as an effect separate from HP (the concussive force of the blast or some such), so as to dodge the whole question of having to stat all my walls, pillars, doors, bridges, and whatnot just in case someone tries to sunder them with their mighty thews.</p><p></p><p> It's math, so you talk about averages an medians and means, same as for melee attacks. Factoring in saves is pretty trivial. So the reliability element, such as it is, is normally taken into account for DPR stuff.</p><p></p><p>I don't put nearly as much emphasis on DPR as some people mind you. My favorite spells aren't ones that damage, for the most part. I wasn't talking about DPR anyway. I was talking about general reliability, the chance you get the effect you want, or not, and the chance that something goes wrong. A 20th level fighter with four attacks a round is going roll a critical fumble, on average, once every five rounds, or almost once per combat encounter. Plus he's going to miss X of his Y attacks. Magic is more reliable than that. You have no critical fumbles, and in many cases you get either full or half damage.</p><p></p><p>I also wasn't talking about <em>just</em> making casting less reliable. That would kinda suck, wouldn't it. I was talking about making casting <em>more</em> powerful but balancing that out with some unreliability and consequences for failure. I don't think playing dice with the universe should be consequence free. You can't just drop the nerf bat though, that's icky. It's about balance.</p><p></p><p>All the time dude, all the time.</p><p></p><p>What I'm picturing is the worst case scenario, which needs to be pictured when looking at the practicability of an idea. Clever players constantly test the limits of how inventive they can be with spells already, so if you give them<em> carte blanche</em> that trend would only intensify. It's too much to manage on a case-by-case basis - not only too much mental energy, but also too much table time. Why bother doing all that single case adjudication when you can hack some simple mechanics to take care of most of it? Of course clever plans should be encouraged, I<strong> love</strong> clever plans. I never suggested that this shouldn't be the case, and in fact my interest in additional mechanics is usually in aide of expanding the clever plan part of the game.</p><p></p><p>If you're going to be knocking about outside the usual coverage of the RAW, it is really, <em>really</em>, useful to lay down some mechanics, even very light ones, that add some structure to whatever you're doing. Whether it's magic, or exploration, to social interaction, or whatever. The mechanics give the players a handholds they can use to make those clever plans. Rather than having to ask in every instance "will this work" they have some mechanics that tell them what will work, or not. It easier for the players and easier for the GM.</p><p></p><p>As a caveat, I'm not suggesting that you need a mechanic for everything, far from it. Only that you can certainly need more mechanics for certain things than are provided the core rules of D&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 7998365, member: 6993955"] Do you think 30 points of damage is enough to topple a stone pillar? Maybe a thinner stone pillar? How a about a really girthy stone pillar? Meh. I'd rather adjudicate it as an effect separate from HP (the concussive force of the blast or some such), so as to dodge the whole question of having to stat all my walls, pillars, doors, bridges, and whatnot just in case someone tries to sunder them with their mighty thews. It's math, so you talk about averages an medians and means, same as for melee attacks. Factoring in saves is pretty trivial. So the reliability element, such as it is, is normally taken into account for DPR stuff. I don't put nearly as much emphasis on DPR as some people mind you. My favorite spells aren't ones that damage, for the most part. I wasn't talking about DPR anyway. I was talking about general reliability, the chance you get the effect you want, or not, and the chance that something goes wrong. A 20th level fighter with four attacks a round is going roll a critical fumble, on average, once every five rounds, or almost once per combat encounter. Plus he's going to miss X of his Y attacks. Magic is more reliable than that. You have no critical fumbles, and in many cases you get either full or half damage. I also wasn't talking about [I]just[/I] making casting less reliable. That would kinda suck, wouldn't it. I was talking about making casting [I]more[/I] powerful but balancing that out with some unreliability and consequences for failure. I don't think playing dice with the universe should be consequence free. You can't just drop the nerf bat though, that's icky. It's about balance. All the time dude, all the time. What I'm picturing is the worst case scenario, which needs to be pictured when looking at the practicability of an idea. Clever players constantly test the limits of how inventive they can be with spells already, so if you give them[I] carte blanche[/I] that trend would only intensify. It's too much to manage on a case-by-case basis - not only too much mental energy, but also too much table time. Why bother doing all that single case adjudication when you can hack some simple mechanics to take care of most of it? Of course clever plans should be encouraged, I[B] love[/B] clever plans. I never suggested that this shouldn't be the case, and in fact my interest in additional mechanics is usually in aide of expanding the clever plan part of the game. If you're going to be knocking about outside the usual coverage of the RAW, it is really, [I]really[/I], useful to lay down some mechanics, even very light ones, that add some structure to whatever you're doing. Whether it's magic, or exploration, to social interaction, or whatever. The mechanics give the players a handholds they can use to make those clever plans. Rather than having to ask in every instance "will this work" they have some mechanics that tell them what will work, or not. It easier for the players and easier for the GM. As a caveat, I'm not suggesting that you need a mechanic for everything, far from it. Only that you can certainly need more mechanics for certain things than are provided the core rules of D&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Putting The Awe Back In Magic
Top